Saledovil

What's your point?

This Jesus looks like he could just break free from the cross.

Paint is not infrastructure. Give us something that actually protects us, and we'll use it.

Well, meowmeowbeanz has a good point, namely, Anonymous saying anything is meaningless. Because Anonymous is a not a group, at best it could be called a movement, at worst it's just a name. In any case, anybody can claim to speak for them. Hence their statements are meaningless.

However, meowmeowbeanz's post is also a barely coherent rant with overused emphasis. Which makes them seem mentally unwell. It's like encountering somebody with a tinfoil hat ranting about how the earth is round.

Apparently, it takes only 10 hours to beat Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup. . Which seems oddly low, considering just how difficult this game is, and that you have to start over if you die, since it's a roguelike. Though, maybe I just suck. Though, maybe it's for one successful playthrough, which isn't that much of a useful metric when discussing roguelikes.

If they are dumping their bags now, which SHOULD make them criminals, what were they when they bought those bags? You make zero sense.

They're using their influence on the government to enrich themselves. Textbook corruption. Shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand that.

Node runners showed miners who is in control in 2017, and they will happily do so again.

Node runners gained a victory so grand in 2017, that it can't be spoken aloud, for the heavens would cave in under such splendor.

That’s cute, previously you pretended that only onchain exists, and now you’re a lightning expert, an expert who is unable to run a well connected node. Okay.

Are those 'well connected nodes' in the room with us right now?

Are the senators and state legislators who advocate for bitcoin strategic reserves all criminals? You don’t know what you’re talking about.

They're trying to dump their bags on the US government. Is it illegal? Sadly no. Should it be? Yes.

A fork will never be considered bitcoin by my bitcoin node,

Your opinion won't matter. You don't own an exchange, you aren't a major bitcoin miner, and you're not a platform landlord or newspaper editor.

and nobody who runs a bitcoin node is incentivized to increase the limit on bitcoin as it would only devalue their bitcoin. Again, you don’t seem to understand even basic concepts about bitcoin.

The people I mentioned above don't want Bitcoin, they want actual money. If devaluing Bitcoin will let them get more money, they'll do it in a heartbeat.

Oh my, you’re stuck in a narrative from 2017. Again, you don’t know anything about bitcoin or the lightning network.

To make an analogy for the lightning network, imagine each time you made a credit card payment, you have a to roll a die, and only if it comes up as a six, your payment goes through.

Not useful to law abiding citizens, exactly. There's plenty of people who are not law abiding citizens.

The scarcity is debatable because of forks. When a coin forks, then people need to settle which of the forks is the legitimate coin, and which one is the fork. There are several institutions and people who have influence over this discussion: Miners (They decide which fork to mine on), Exchanges (They decide who gets the old name and ticker symbol), platform landlords (they have significant ability to steer discourse), media (see previous). If enough of those came together, and decided that there should be 21 trillion bitcoin instead of 21 million, then there will soon be 21 trillion bitcoin.

While my example is far fetched, crypto currencies being forked to subvert their rules has already happened. For example, the ethereum/ethereum classic fork. The Ethereum blockchain got forked to roll back the hack of the DAO. Nothing the Hackers did violated Ethereum's protocol, meaning that technically, they did nothing wrong. An example of a political decision which is harmful to the long term utility of the crypto currency would be the Bitcoin/Bitcoin cash fork. Bitcoin has a block size limit, which leads to a transaction limit of 7 transactions per second. This limit absolutely ruins Bitcoin's potential utility, because even relatively small economies would be utterly choked with a 7 transaction limit. Still, miners profit from a tight transaction limit, and other institutions aren't bothered by it, so they decided that the fork with the transaction limit was the legitimate one.

In conclusion, the 21 million bitcoin limit will remain as long as it is useful to the influential figures in the bitcoin ecosystem. See above for a rough listing of who those people are.

Bitcoin is a purely speculative asset. It has potential the same way a lottery ticket does.

Bitcoin is not useful, and its scarcity is debatable.

The problem with statements like "If you invested in Bitcoin back in 2009 you'd be rich now" is that you'd have to be clairvoyant to actually know that back then. And if you're clairvoyant, the lottery offers a better return on investment than bitcoin.

My theory on how Deepseek managed to beat out ChatGPT: All LLMs do is that they try to guess what the next token is, based on statistics. Making the statistics more precise requires exponentially more training data and weights. You can see that if you compare model sizes, they tend to double for the next level of model.

So, as a consequence, you can build a model half as big, and only sacrifice a fraction of the performance.